Jonathan D. Eichman

Attorney Jonathan Eichman’s practice focuses on general municipal law, land use, and real estate law. In the municipal law area, he assists clients with a variety of issues, including town meetings, municipal charters and by-laws, conflict of interest, public records, the Open Meeting Law, and municipal finance. In the area of land use, Attorney Eichman counsels municipalities on the interpretation and application of zoning by-laws, subdivision control regulations, and wetlands statutes and by-laws, with particular emphasis on the analysis and handling of zoning nonconformities and the statutory protection afforded religious and educational uses. In the area of real estate, Attorney Eichman focuses on assisting municipalities with all aspects of eminent domain takings and laying out public ways, together with negotiating and drafting purchase and sale agreements, licenses, leases, and a wide array of easements and restrictions. He represents municipalities in zoning and real estate matters before all levels of the federal and state courts, including the United States District Court, the Massachusetts Appeals Court, and the Massachusetts trials courts.

Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. Ginger Peabody, et al., Worcester Superior Court, C.A. No. 03-1474C. Utilizing an argument that had yet be applied in the reported cases, convinced the Superior Court to uphold a denial of an educational user’s application to expand its use of an already-overcrowded lot on the grounds that the user failed to show that it could not find a conforming location elsewhere.

Cottone, et al. v. Cedar Lake, LLC, et al., 67 Mass.App.Ct. 464 (2006). In a case of first impression, the Appeals Court affirmed the authority of the municipality to create by charter a seven member zoning board of appeals, and rejected the appellants’ arguments that G.L. c.40A requires a 4/5’s vote of a seven-member board before the board can act.

Maimone, et al. v. Town of Georgetown, et al., 58 Mass.App.Ct. 1105 (2003). The Appeals Court confirmed that a municipality’s repair of a private way does not require the municipality to maintain the way for six years following the repair.